Polarized stereo 3D using 2 projectors + cheap foil filters

The only reason why shutter glasses will be very popular is because of the cheap price of producing the rest of the electronics for it. It is much, much easier to mix 2 pictures into one alternating one than to have two separate pictures displayed independently. Because they don't have to produce and display two different images at the same time, they can just slightly adjust the rest of the shit dirt cheap (TV's, BluRay players, BluRay discs/movies), and make billions of dollars on it.

I see both sides and both technologies. The bottom line is, with shutter glasses you are BLINDED FOR 50% OF THE TIME. Doesn't matter what the refresh rate is, one eye is always looking at a black piece of glass, it is just an optical illusion. The technology has already reached 90% of it's full potential and there is really no more room for significant improvements. They can make glasses cheaper, smaller, and lighter, but that is pretty much it.

The polarized technology is the real deal. You are looking at two images 100% of the time, each eye receiving it's own picture. It is not an illusion, the brain is not fooled into believing. You are looking at the picture as you look at real life objects. Opposed to the shutter glasses, this technology still has a lot of potential and it will improve dramatically in the next couple of years. And I mean improved and dedicated home projectors that eliminate problems with double projection, improved screen materials, improved filters, and TV's will also start to pop up soon.

Either way you look at it, this is the future. Right now they are just trying to get a good run with shutter glasses, make their money while they can. If they don't die out completely, the only place I see for them on the marketplace is the mid to low end, over-priced and over-marketed range, the same BS you see everywhere today.

I agree, 2x 120Hz doesn't mean 240Hz refresh rate. BUT! Using 2x 120Hz polarized projectors, you will give 4x the picture information compared to a single 120Hz shutter glass setup.
-2x 120 images/sec = 240 images /sec
-1x 120 images/sec = 120 images /sec, but you only see an image for 50% of the time.

I have to agree with ego. I would rather put my money onto the wall and ceiling, and not on the heads of my drunk (or even sober) friends. Plus, nobody is going to buy a lot of $150 glasses just so others can watch 3D occasionally. It is always an awkward situation when you have to tell them: Sorry, only 4 of you can watch this 3D movie with me. You decide who!

It sounds like you see a theoretical limitation more than you see both sides. Personally, I couldn't care less how much I am blinded if the result looks just as good. In this case however, 3D Vision looks better and smoother because there's no crosstalk.

Here's *my* bottom line: Visual Quality, and Cost

I've extensively tested both of these solutions. In my experience, 3D Vision on a projector has higher visual quality because there is no ghosting or crosstalk. This means that the edges of a bright object are not ghosted to the wrong eye.
To me ghosting/crosstalk has more of a negative affect on the experience than reminding myself that I'm BLINDED FOR 50% OF THE TIME, which has no real impact on my visual experience.
Forgive me if I favor a better visual quality over your theoretical complaint.

2nd point for visual quality: 3D Vision allows for the mouse cursor to be seen through both eyes; iZ3D and DDD drivers do not. So if you're into RTS or MMOs, grit your teeth and bear with the pain in the ass, it's quite disorienting to see a cursor in only one eye. You wouldn't think so but it really is. I guess if you remind yourself that you're not being blinded for 50% of the time it might make you feel better about it... probably not tho.

Visual quality: Blu-ray 3D. How does it look on a dual-projector? Oh yeah, you can't do it on a polarized dual projector system. Visual quality = zero.

Visuals out of the way, what about cost? Under $1000 for 3D Vision with one pair of glasses, $2500 for dual-projectors and that's with a makeshift polarized filter holder and a hell of a lot more work. And you can't watch Blu-ray 3D, btw. And your mouse cursor issue sucks, and you get ghosting. Yay!

you want to have more friends over? The $1500 difference gets you 10 more pairs of glasses if you want to compare dollar for dollar. When was the last time you had 10 people over to watch a movie, BTW?

Forgive me for looking at this from an engineering point of view, rather than a just a consumer's.

I can't figure out how to theoretically limit something, maybe its just too late... It is a practical limitation of the technology, something that is just a fact.
I see both sides as in yours and ego's opinions, and I see both sides of the technology and their implications.

I'm sorry, but you missed my point about having more glasses and friends over (or how about gaming/simulator centers?). It is really not about buying 10 pairs and having a HUGE 3D P.A.R.T.Y. in my living room (although that would be cool!).
It is about replacing them when broken! Everybody knows glasses are fragile, and you know Murphy's Law about them braking. It WILL happen.
....Oh, and I haven't even mentioned electrical failures. Just wait until the Chinese knockoff $30 glasses hit the market.

I wasn't trying to compare currently available products, I was just simply stating my opinion about the two technologies. You have tested currently available products and base your opinion about your experiences. We truly appreciate you sharing and by no means I am saying you are wrong. I haven't been lucky enough to try them side by side, and I don't plan to buy any of the two options. If I was shopping for a 3D setup right now, for the next 3 years, I would definitely consider 3D Vision.

All of the current problems you encountered with the polarized technology will be solved sooner than you think. Compatibility and minor driver/software issues can be solved very easily. I am sure they have everything worked out in the lab for the crosstalk issue, it just takes time to release it on the market at a reasonable price.

Until then, everyone feed that piggy bank! :

Well, it might help if I explain it a little.
A theoretical limit is a limit that has no practical impact on reality: For instance, the speed of light limitation has no impact on how fast you can drive your car. It's irrelevant in real-life, outside the scope of possibility and has no effect on your car driving experience.
Similarly, a if I'm blinded for 50% of the time when I'm using a 120 Hz solution... yet there's no way to practically notice that limitation, because the experience is as smooth and seamless as a polarized option--then that's a theoretical limitation. It is irrelevant and has no bearing on practical reality.

Therefore, I don't see this as a practical limitation for a 120 Hz AFR 3D display.

And if huge 3d parties or sim centers are your application, polarized displays are for you, no doubt about it. But if your plan isn't to host 3D parties--just maybe play some games on your own or watch some blu-ray 3D movies with your family--then 120 Hz alternate-frame displays are very likely the way to go. The right tool for the right job.
Breaking the glasses is of course a risk, but with the cost difference you'd have to break an awful lot of glasses to switch the value over to dual projectors. And that's assuming the price never goes down, which is something of an inevitability as volume increases and time goes by. Like you say, $30 Chinese knockoffs. Actually from what i understand there's already a Chinese company selling 3D Vision compatible glasses

Fair enough. And if you were shopping right now I'd hope that you'd get the chance to try them both out before purchasing anything, and I'd hope that you'd consider your application before spending your hard earned money. The only thing that would disappoint me is the idea that folks would spend a couple grand without even trying a 120 Hz option because of prejudice and a bad experience with the technology's forbears. People owe it to themselves to try out the options before letting go of their cash.

I don't think you understand the practical limitations of polarized filters. Polarized filters have been around a LONG time, this isn't new technology here. Crosstalk (ghosting) is something that has always been a problem with polarized filters because it's not practically possible to stop 100% of the light from one of the projectors from reaching the wrong eye. Even extremely expensive polarized solutions in theatres--like Dolby3D or Real3D--show crosstalk artifacts. It's a practical limitation, not a theoretical one.

And then the inevitable question becomes, why hope for a polarized solution to a Crosstalk problem that is already practically solved with 120 Hz AFR displays?

As far as driver incompatibilities, I've talked to both iZ3D and DDD reps and both have made it clear that polarized dual-projector displays are priority zero. They aren't willing to apply any development time to fix the issues. Dual-projector systems aren't designed or supported for consumer use and their priorities are elsewhere--in iZ3D's case it is their proprietary displays, in DDD's case it's likely the interlaced half-resolution polarized displays they developed with Hyundai. In both cases the dual-projector option was added to the driver as a value-add, not a core component. These driver/software issues have been around since day one, and there is even less incentive to fix them now that 120 Hz displays are quickly taking over as the de-facto consumer 3D option. In addition, both companies have no internal plans to develop a Blu-ray 3D solution for their 3D driver...

As I said: If I was shopping for a 3D setup right now, for the next 3 years, I would definitely consider 3D Vision.
and: I wasn't trying to compare currently available products, I was just simply stating my opinion about the two technologies.

They are extremely expensive because of the rest of the equipment, not because of the filters. It is also very hard to get everything perfect for everyone in a 200ppl movie theater.

I have to disagree as it is not a limitation of the technology, but rather the manufacturing of polarized filters and screens on the consumer level. I agree that nothing is perfect and in real life there is never 100%, but we can get closer and closer to a point where ghosting disappears. You can take my word on this: There already exists a solution to ghosting in the multi million dollar optics labs. The real question is: How much would it cost to manufacture?

As far as the drivers go: Every company can decide what part of the market and technology to support, there is nothing we can do about it. When there will be a demand for it, trust me, they will jump on the bandwagon with many other developers sooner than you can put your socks on. If there is money involved, they will jump on their share...

Just to sum up my point of view, I do think 3D Vision has the upper hand in over all, availability/price/support/convenience. I do think that polarized 3D technology will improve dramatically in the next couple years (as I stated before) in all areas, and when it does, it will be better.

Until then we just have to see where all the business agendas and interests take the 3D market, and hope the prices will drop.

I have question to those who consider Nvidia 3D Vision as a better one (big screen set):

Which 3D Vision compatible projector can kick 3D Picture in resolution 1920x1080 ?

I really like that 3D review from Tom`s Hardware site. It contain all those things what happen on 3D Forums by all those years of development.

If someone considering his own health then maybe we can try to compare those two technology. I am not against Nvidia - that`s why i will call it shutter glasses compare to polarized one.

I have been using them both and since i am considering myself as a healthy human i just couldn`t use shutter glasses for longer then 2 hours and even after this time i felt like someone still pressing my head from the sides. That doesn`t exist with polarized one. Even after 8 hours i can take a walk outside without headache.

Also comparing some game experience, how they looks on each system i have to say that without proper optimization or straight 3D code in game`s engine they looks far worst on shutter glasses (Multi-displacement of shadows, textures....). Examples: Mass Effect 2, Red Faction Guerrilla, GTA IV, Split/Second...... They looks just great on polarized system.

But the rest of the equipment is designed to minimize the physical limitations of the filters. That's why it's expensive.

Here's some interesting info for you: RealD--one of the most popular movie theatre 3D formats--uses shutter technology. They simply move the shutter to the projector instead of the glasses, so your eyes are still covered 50% of the time...

RealD uses a combination of polarizers and AFR on a single projector. Frames are alternated at 144 Hz. Every alternate frame is polarized. But guess what? Since the polarizers aren't perfect, ghosting occurs.

Dolby3D is an alternative that actually uses dual projectors, but the cost of the glasses to the theatres is about $60/pair. They use some very expensive and unique polarizers to minimize artifacts. But not only are the filters expensive, the equipment that drives it is ridiculously expensive. Dolby 3D theatres are very rare because of this. RealD is killing them in the market.

Now, if you're argument is that folks should wait for Dolby3D polarized tech to become available in the home, you inevitably get back to the question: why wait for polarized to be fixed when 120 Hz AFR already works in the home? We have FIRST GEN 120 Hz technology that we can buy right now for under $1000. First gen! It only gets cheaper from here.

If your argument is to wait for polarized because of cheaper glasses, that's fine. But you're forgetting that it's reasonable to suggest that the cost of 120 Hz AFR glasses will drop to reasonable levels before Dolby3D polarized tech reaches the consumer.

Of course, all of this assumes that better polarized tech will ever come to the consumer. But all of the major Television manufacturers have already invested a lot of money into 120 Hz 3d tech, and it already works without ghosting. So what's their incentive to change everything and invest in different tech? Not to mention, there's no cost-effective way to do full-res polarized 3D on a television. Not to mention, nobody is driving dual projectors as a consumer-level solution. Getting something to the consumer requires industry interest, and the industry is happy with 120 Hz AFR.

Time will tell I suppose, but I think you're making a colossal assumption that dual-projectors will someday be groomed for consumers. IMHO, there's no incentive for anybody to do that since you can do it cheaper TODAY with a 120 Hz AFR setup. Even the only two polarized driver developers have indicated they don't plan on spending any time on it.

I guess time will tell which one of us is right, but without industry interest your assumption is running an uphill battle.

None yet, they're coming but not here. Frankly I'm fine with 720p, and if you're running polarized you're going to want 720p as well.
The 1080p projectors at a reasonable cost don't kick out enough light to deliver a good polarized or 120 Hz AFR performance for 3D.

Thanks! I enjoyed writing it.

I tested 5 people with 120 Hz 3D Vision glasses and all of them were happy to keep going and play some video games after a 2 hour movie. I did have a different friend who felt sick after watching the dual-projector setup, but he might have felt sick watching 120 Hz AFR so I didn't get him to try it.

I suppose some people can always get ill from one or the other. But I'm curious... have you gotten sick with the new 120 Hz 3D Vision shutter glasses or the older stuff at 85 Hz or less? The difference is night and day.

That's interesting. That's not at all what my testing has revealed. I'm tying up my review now and I've found that 3D Vision works better than iZ3D drivers when it comes to image quality (i.e. messed up skybox textures, shadows, etc) on the games I've tried. The DDD drivers did a little better on one game--Crysis--and only if it was run in virtual3d mode, but in that mode the DDD drivers gave me a lot of strange interface issues. Also, as I've mentioned, both the DDD and iZ3D drivers seem to lose the mouse cursor in one eye when run on dual projectors, and this doesn't happen with 3D Vision. And 3D Vision has native DirectX 11 support, something DDD and iZ3D are struggling with.

Are you saying you tried Mass Effect 2, Red Faction Guerrilla, GTA IV, and Split/Second on both 3D Vision and then a polarized setup, and 3D Vision was worse in each case? If so, which drivers were you using for your polarized setup? If you've tried them on both setups I'd be interested in testing these games too because I have NOT found this to be the case.

I don't have an argument as I don't argue about opinions. I think I clearly stated my point of view a couple times already, which you seemingly misunderstand. Your opinion is based on your experiences and consumer point of view, my opinion is based on the principles behind the technologies and my engineer point of view. There is nothing to argue about, but to learn from the other.

Skaut pointed out a very important point, something I forgot to mention. Even though you don't notice the shutter glasses flicker, 60Hz is too slow for extended use. The real problem is not the refresh rate, but rather the fact that the glasses flicker. It tires the eyes and causes headaches like the CRT monitors back in the day. LCD's are a lot better for your eyes because the back light stays constant, only the pixels get refreshed. You don't notice it, but the body feels it. You can argue that you don't get headaches from it, but a lot of others do.

I skipped 720p picture 10 years ago - PC is pushing resolution and quality of the picture to the limits every single year and when someone is after that kind of experience his do not even think about step back.

Cleeve - also mentioned about lack of support from DDD or IZ3D. When games will get theirs own 3D code implemented into theirs engine then we will stop messing with extra drivers. Great example is Avatar: The Game - you don`t need any of them to run game in 3D - just two projectors and polarized setup (Dual Head in stereo menu in the game).

If 60 Hz was too slow for extended use, nobody would be able to game on an LCD monitor. (except maybe the 120 3D Vision-ready models in 2D mode )

As I said, some people can and will feel sick from both polarized and 120 Hz solutions.
Indeed, people are often leaving polarized 3D theatres due to feelings of nausea. But all I can do is report my findings, and in a 6-person test group (myself included) nobody felt ill after a 2 hour movie followed by a couple hours of gaming on a 120 Hz AFR setup.

That's cool, you're certainly entitled to feel that way for sure but I don't necessarily agree.
I use a 2560x1600 monitor, but I personally find 720p just fine for playing games and watching movies on a projector screen. You're using dual 1080p projectors for your setup then? how much did you get those Panasonic PT-AE3000's for? Must have cost a pretty penny! I can't find them for less than $2000 a piece, $4000+ is too rich for my blood.
Do you find that you have to control the light to get good performance out of them? They're only 1600 lumen.

That's a bit of a far-looking assumption, but if would be nice if it becomes the norm. I haven't tried Avatar: the game, the reviews weren't the best but it might be worth taking a look at just to see how they implemented the driver...
Of course, none of that helps the ghosting issue.


You didn't answer my question there though, did you manage to try out those games you talked about on both 3D Vision and polarized setups? Or did you just assume they're better on polarized?

Seriously? Come on.. You review video equipment professionally, write articles, and still make a comment like this?
Even if you didn't read what I just posted...

Let me quote myself again: Even though you don't notice the shutter glasses flicker, 60Hz is too slow for extended use. The real problem is not the refresh rate, but rather the fact that the glasses flicker...LCD's are a lot better for your eyes because the back light stays constant, only the pixels get refreshed.

The constant flickering causes eye strain and headaches. It is a completely different thing from the nausea you are referring to, which is caused by the 3D experience in whole.

There are flaws in both technologies and one will suit a specific purpose better than the other. You don't care about high resolution, but many of us do because it makes a HUGE difference in gaming. Since this isn't a Home Theater forum, you will find this common. The ghosting effect seems to be your biggest problem with polarizers, but there is a whole lot more to picture quality than just that, and different people have a different concept of what is a good picture and what is a bad picture.

And let me say this one more time. We are not here to argue what is better or who is right. We are here to share our opinions and experiences, and learn from others'. We openly discuss the pros and cons and make a comparison to help those in the future make an educated decision.

I have experience with all types of 3D picture which all people are able to get access to. At the moment i am comparing all this games between Nvidia`s 3D Vision and Polarized one which i made.

With price comes quality and that is something what you can not disagree with. When i said that quality of my system impressed me like nothing before then i didn`t even mean to compare this with cheap projectors from Nvidia`s choice. Those projectors can impressed only when you see them for the very first time and maybe suits to someone who uses console.
Nobody said to me that when you are happy about something you have to stop and appreciate that forever. That is how both Sony and Microsoft fans see progress.

Calm down sport, just making an observation as to 60 Hz with a smiley at the end of the sentence, to boot. Sound like you took it a little seriously, there.

Flicker can be a problem, yes, but in my experience--and the experience of the folks whom I forced to sit through hours of it--I don't think it's as terrible as you are making it seem. As I stated, even RealD (the primary theatre 3D projection system) is displaying at 77 Hz per eye.

Hold up there, Frakk. I like my high resolution as much as the next guy, as I said I do most of my gaming on a 2560x1600 monitor.

But I also like saving money where I can, and dual 1920 projectors are going to cost more than double a single 720p 3D Vision ready job. If every gamer interested in 3D had $2500 lying around that'd be great, but 720p is a fine tradeoff. And as you say, the tech keeps changing. It's a given that 1080p 3D Vision ready projectors are on the way.

Absolutely. Ghosting is a problem, a one-eyed cursor is a problem. The iZ3D drivers have a host of terrible problems when it comes to image quality, specifically when it comes to backgrounds and skyboxes, but also when it comes to shadows. DDD drivers do a little better on those areas, but they also just plain don't work half the time on a dual-projection system because they aren't sell supported. So you can have decent image quality 50% of the time and no image quality the other 50% of the time.

Of course, the 3d Vision drivers seem to work on all of the games in my test group, and without most of the background/shadow artifacts that iZ3D drivers exhibit.

Yes, there is a whole lot more to image quality than just ghosting.

Awesome, it looks like we're both here for the same noble reasons. It seems we can agree on that at the very least.

This is interesting and I have to wonder how we're coming to such different conclusions as to the 3D quality of polarized vs. 3D Vision. My testing shows a huge quality leap over iZ3D drivers when it comes to in-game artifacts. In my upcoming review I'm providing cross-view examples to folks can experience the difference without 3d hardware. If you have the time I'd be interested in seeing some cross-view images produced by your setup using 3D Vision and iZ3D so I can see the quality differences you're talking about.

I can certainly disagree on a per-situation basis. Price does not always equate to better quality, a case in point being a $2500 dual projector setup compared with a $1000 3D Vision setup.

Interesting assumption, but ultimately incorrect. The only console I have in my house is a Wii for the kids. I prefer PC gaming.

As far as progress, I went out of my way to make a dual projector system and write a detailed review about it. I assumed there was nothing better. Then, I tried a 3D Vision system and was impressed by the visual quality increase over polarized. So I can certainly agree that fanboyism is counter-productive. It definitely pays to have an open mind.

I agree with Frakk - we have this post to develop this project and improve it not to prove that someone is making big mistake when he things different. Little bit from opposite site was good at the beginning but right now become to be not very constructive.
This post is about Polarized 3D. If someone feels like he need to change peoples knowledge about 3D Vision it will be nice to open separated one.